|
|
|
I wonder why journalists in India are generally not given to writing a coherent
and analytical account of what they feel and observe during their travels and
interactions with the world outside the newspaper offices. The business of
writing books should not be left only to the academia. Quite a few journalists
understand our past better than many historians. Likewise, many of them are well
equipped to analyse contemporary Indian politics. Some of our dons in political
science departments, on the other hand, still grapple with out moded categories
and old-fashioned theories.
Achin Vanaik quit the volatile world of journalism in Bombay to seek refuge in
Delhi's Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, 'a relaxed and stimulating place to
work in.' His loss to journalism is a gain to scholarship. Communalism contested
is surely one of the more incisive books that have appeared on the subject during
the last decade or so.
Vanaik's Marxian perspective is set out clearly. His ideological preferences are
expressed unambiguously. He speaks with a loud and clear voice which is both
distinct and refreshing is so many ways. And he writes with passion and
conviction.
The book begins with a critique of both post-modernist and anti-modernist strands
of thinking in the writings on secularism, though the author's chief concern is
unravel why communalism has gained ground during the twenty five years to cast
shadow over India's polity and society. The endeavour is to shift attention
towards civil society and emphasise secularisation and not just the secularity of
the state and the ideology of secularism. And the argument is that communalism and
fundamentalism can be contested mainly on the terrain of civil society. The
democratisation and secularisation processes need to be stabilised and deepened.
I am not convinced by Vanaik's attempt to link "the struggle to defeat
communalism" with "the struggle to replace bourgeois democracy with a deeper
socialist democracy". While the ideal of a socialist democracy is appealing it is
by no means a necessary condition for countering the communal menace. Look at the
sharpening of "ethnic" conflicts in the former socialist/communist states soon
after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider, too, how several bourgeoisie
democracies have settled if not resolved religious and ethnic dissensions within
their territorial boundaries.
In India, communalism has had a long gestation period. It developed, gained
impetus and received sustenance from a variety of highly complex factors. To
isolate one from the other is a social scientist's nightmare. I do not advocate a
free market economy, yet it is hard to dismiss the argument that economic
liberalisation even though based on a highly inequitous system, carries the
potential of containing divisive trends. This is not to suggest that
liberalisation is the ultimate solution to the communal problem, but to emphasise
the need to reflect on this argument with an open mind even if one has to refute
it.
The center piece of chapter Four is a critique of Bhiku Parekh, T N Madan and
Ashis Nandy, their readings of culture and civilisation, their unease with modern
concepts of democratic individualism and their preference for religiously rooted
communitarian values as a counterpoint, and, above all their hostility to
secularism.
I would like to make two points. First, the issue before the constitution-makers
was not the European origin of the secular idea but its rightful appropriation in
a country of diverse faiths and multiple identities. They were not bogged down by
finer issues of definition, categorisation and application of secularism. They
wanted to ensure that its essence the impartiality and neutrality of the State in
its relations with the religious institutions and practices of the different
communities - was not lost on people. And their aim was to prescribe norms for a
democratic civil society, foster inter-community relations, and develop, what was
Jawaharlal's great passion, a scientific temper. This was a modern goal, a
rational goal and an Indian goal. And Nehru, unlike most Third World leaders, very
nearly succeeded in achieving that goal.
Second, there is no denying the rise of obscurantism and fundamentalism. Equally,
the dice is loaded against secularism and multi-culturalism not just in India but
in other societies as well. Yet there are powerful reasons for restoring the
democratic and secular consensus of the 1950s and reiterating Nehru's secular
agenda which provides a raison d'etre for reconciling sectarian perceptions and
goals.
Finally, I believe there is still a glimmer of hope in the coalition of democratic
forces, in the popular revulsion against the excesses of the religious right, and
in the sheer diversity of Indian society. If such a coalition receives the
mandate of the electorate, we can argue with greater confidence that secularism as
a general credo of life is possible, as a basis for State action practicable, and
as a blueprint for the future desirable.
Vanaik situates the 'Threat of Hindu Communalism' in a broad frame, though many of
his theoretical constructs need to be tested against empirical facts. I believe
the nature and scale of this threat is exaggerated. Also, the highly vitiated
politics of the Indo-Gangetic belt cannot be the basis for a generalised statement
on Hindu communalism just as the murmurings of some Muslim fundamentalists must
not lead us to conclude that they influence the Muslim people. What happens
beyond the Vindhyas must not be lost sight of.
The Babri Masjid's demolition was surely an act of vandalism for which the Sangh
Parivar was solely responsible. But it cannot be the sole reference point for
ongoing debates on communalism and secularism. After all the post-Ayodhya period
also witnessed the collapse of the Hindutva campaign and the marginalisation of
some hot-headed Muslim leaders. These facts, along with the electorate's verdict
in parliamentary and state elections, must also be drawn into situating the threat
of Hindu communalism.
Vanaik concedes, though only in his last chapter, that "following from the 1996
elections, the most apt summary evaluation of the BJP's performance and prospects
is that it is proceeding on a slow but uncertain march. If further gains are a
definite possibility, so too are future reverses".
Vanaik's last chapter has insights, while the quality of writing makes it
readable. Yet the Congress story and its part in stoking the fires of communalism
has not been satisfactorily analysed. The mere critique of the prime ministers
does not reveal how and why the Congress commitment to secularism weakened, how
and why the rank and file of the party was communalised. The higher echelons of
the Congress leadership would not have been a mute witness to the Babri Masjid's
desecration if they were sure that their followers would be shocked and indignant
by their apathy and neglect.
(Reviewer is the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia)
 |
||
|
||
|
||
